Author Topic: 50. Vs. Cannons  (Read 8940 times)

Offline DoLbY

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 273
50. Vs. Cannons
« Reply #105 on: July 13, 2007, 12:55:02 AM »
Some very brutal damage in those pictures and the video...:O

Offline Viking

  • Personal Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2867
50. Vs. Cannons
« Reply #106 on: July 13, 2007, 07:33:29 AM »
Indeed.

Offline gripen

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1914
50. Vs. Cannons
« Reply #107 on: July 13, 2007, 09:40:55 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Gibbage
Yep.  Like I said before, I was lead to believe that the Mk-108 was a very inaccurate gun.


You can test that in AH; if you shoot B-24 drones at short range (say less than 200), usually it takes only couple shots with the MK 108. Then try longer range (300 or more) with some amount of deflection... You will find out that  it's all true what Tony said.

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
50. Vs. Cannons
« Reply #108 on: July 13, 2007, 09:48:19 AM »
Tony, just a thought here....


Maybe they were the most common "surviving" because they used all the good stuff first? :P

Any idea how they were actually used, or is this more of an after-the-fact survey of "what's left" ?

Offline Tony Williams

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 725
      • http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
50. Vs. Cannons
« Reply #109 on: July 13, 2007, 01:08:56 PM »
I have no data on the actual use of the Ausf. A and Ausf. C, but it is clear that the Ausf. C was a late-war development and I believe (from photographs as well as surviving examples) that the Ausf. A was far more common.

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
50. Vs. Cannons
« Reply #110 on: July 13, 2007, 01:12:00 PM »
Interesting... So the 30mm in AH's 109K-4 and the G-14 should be far superior to that in the Bf110G4 adn 190a8, then?

The K-4 and G-14 were much later in the war. Much better chance of them having the "latest and greatest" ammo, right?


I'm thinking it would be nice to know more about this, and perhaps have HTC change the modeling on the K-4 and G-14 30mm, to be the Ausf. C version :)

EDIT: Depending on dates, perhaps not the G-14, but the K-4, for sure!

Offline Stoney74

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1439
50. Vs. Cannons
« Reply #111 on: July 13, 2007, 07:57:40 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Krusty
Interesting... So the 30mm in AH's 109K-4 and the G-14 should be far superior to that in the Bf110G4 adn 190a8, then?

The K-4 and G-14 were much later in the war. Much better chance of them having the "latest and greatest" ammo, right?


I'm thinking it would be nice to know more about this, and perhaps have HTC change the modeling on the K-4 and G-14 30mm, to be the Ausf. C version :)

EDIT: Depending on dates, perhaps not the G-14, but the K-4, for sure!


Its the ammo, not the aircraft.  All these aircraft were used right up till the end of the war, and would have had a somewhat equal chance to use the more advanced ammo.  The bigger question would be which ammo type would HTC model (or have they already) for all the Mk108 aircraft?

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
50. Vs. Cannons
« Reply #112 on: July 14, 2007, 12:22:29 AM »
Clearly, the lesser ammo. Mk108 is the WORST gun in the game. Worse than MG/FF, even!

The only thing that could be worse is if we got the P-39 with the Oldsmobile cannon.

Offline georgh

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 24
50. Vs. Cannons
« Reply #113 on: July 14, 2007, 12:30:42 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Krusty
The only thing that could be worse is if we got the P-39 with the Oldsmobile cannon.


Would that son of a ***** freeze up in the middle of the summer on the equator?